Dmitriy, No problem, will do.
Sergi 2015-08-04 21:56 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <[email protected]>: > Sergey, > > Having array-based queries is a very nice "secret" feature :) I actually > was not aware of it. > > Do you mind updating the documentation? Basically, just put some > explanation and the example you have in this thread into the Sql Query > section here: > https://apacheignite.readme.io/docs/cache-queries#sql-queries > > D. > > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Sergi Vladykin <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I know that it is a common misconception, but we use H2 database engine >> to process SQL queries, their position on the issue is that they don't want >> to support that until other databases do the same. Do you know any >> databases that support such a syntax? >> >> Also there is another more effective workaround which opposite to IN >> operator can use indexes and supports variable length arrays: >> >> >> >> *select p._val from Person p, table(name varchar = ?) n where p.name >> <http://t.id> = n.name <http://z.id>* >> and pass there array of names (String[]) as a parameter, but here you >> have to use SqlFieldsQuery. >> >> Sergi >> >> >> 2015-08-04 17:44 GMT+03:00 Mirko Raner <[email protected]>: >> >>> Thank you, Sergi. >>> That's exactly what we did wrong! >>> I can see some issues with this solution when there is a large number of >>> set >>> elements. Also, as you mentioned that it's a common issue, I'm wondering >>> if >>> it would make sense for Ignite to support the "IN ?" syntax with an >>> array or >>> collection as argument (either by translating it to the correct syntax >>> under >>> the hood, or by providing a predefined SQL function for this case?). >>> Apparently, we are not the only ones who expected the "IN ?" syntax to >>> work. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://apache-ignite-users.70518.x6.nabble.com/SQL-IN-Operator-tp779p812.html >>> Sent from the Apache Ignite Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >> >> >
